Midwest Center for Theological Studies: Owensboro, KY

Review of Future Israel

Critical Review of Barry Horner’s Future Israel
By Sam Waldron

 Horner, Barry, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged. B&H Academic: Nashville, TN. 2007. 394 pp.

 Preface:

My major concern in this review is to assess the thesis and arguments Horner puts forward. It is important to do this because it is in no small part to Horner’s arguments that MacArthur appeals in his recent affirmations of (Dispensational) Premillennialism. The back dustcover of Horner’s book contains this endorsement by MacArthur.

This is by far the best treatment of Israel’s future I have found. It’s a welcome antidote to the widespread apathy and confusion that have clouded this vital prophetic question. I found it clear, persuasive, thoroughly biblical, and difficult to put down.

Now I love John MacArthur, as I have said in writing, but my reaction to Horner’s book was quite different. I found no problem in putting it down. In fact, I had to pray for grace and patience not to fire it across the room. Nevertheless, you are not reading this to discover an expose of my sinful feelings in reading Horner.  I will attempt to patiently and scripturally point out what I consider to be both the book’s positives and its (numerous) flaws.

Introduction:  Horner’s Thesis

The Nature of Horner’s Thesis
One of the first things a review of any book should do is provide a brief description of its theme and structure.  I will attempt to provide a fair statement of the theme of Horner’s book. Here it is: Amillennialism is necessarily more or less anti-Semitic. Now I have deliberately put it in shocking terms, but they are not terms which misrepresent Horner’s thesis.

Now I must immediately say that Horner does not like the term, anti-Semitic, and in his “Personal Introduction” substitutes for it a different term, anti-Judaism. Here are his own words:

Concerning terminology, a word of explanation is necessary. Instead of the common emotive term of “anti-Semitism” being employed, which is often qualified as either racial or theological, the more specific “anti-Judaism” is mainly used. Nevertheless, even anti-Judaism needs explication. Here it is intended to refer to classic anti-Judaism, which involves opposition to the biblical legacy of Torah mediated through Abraham and Moses rather than opposition to the Rabbinic and Talmudic accretions that Jesus Christ so vigorously opposed, though doubtless some overlap will nevertheless be involved. (xix-xx)

Why does Horner, then, avoid commonly using “anti-Semitism”? I think one main reason for the substitution of anti-Judaism for anti-Semitism is not made perfectly clear in this statement. (In other words, it is implicit not explicit in the statement just cited.) Horner is not talking about all forms of anti-Semitism. (I am not faulting him for this. I don’t think he is obliged to talk about other forms of it.) Actually, Palestinians, for instance, are technically Semitic. Horner’s book is not about racism against them. Horner later cites someone who accuses the Jews themselves of being anti-Semitic because of their treatment of the Palestinians (141). Though I admit Horner does not say so explicitly here, I think that his avoidance of the term, anti-Semitism, has much to do with just being clear about what kind of anti-Semitism he is talking about. He is talking about racism committed against the Jews—not Palestinians. Hence, he speaks of anti-Judaism–not anti-Semitism. This is implied when later in the quotation cited he says that the word, anti-Judaism, is more “specific.” It is more specific because it specifies one form of anti-Semitism.

Horner also wants to avoid the word, anti-Semitism, because it is “emotive.” True enough, it has overtones that are emotive … and offensive! If it is used on you, it makes you feel like you are being called a racist. That is because it is a word which accuses people of being racists in the same way as the Nazis were. But does Horner intend to avoid or mute this ethical overtone when he speaks of anti-Judaism rather than anti-Semitism? I do not think so. Calling Amilllennialists anti-Judaists is just a more accurate way of calling them racists. Perhaps Horner is motivated by the desire that they will not be offended immediately and continue to listen. Perhaps he wants to avoid the “blunt-ness” of anti-Semitism, but “anti-Judaism” still means that someone is ethically a racist.

Anti-Judaism in Horner’s parlance is, therefore, just as racist in its meaning as anti-Semitism. The following statements by Horner make this clear and could be multiplied. Anti-Judaism is “a shameful legacy … still prevalent in many Calvinist …environments.” (xix) He opines: “The reason is that the pro-Judaic perspective involves a vital ethical element, sharply contrasting with unethical anti-Judaism throughout church history…” (3) Anti-Judaism denigrates the Jews.

Whatever the terminology that is used concerning this perspective, whether replacement theology, supercessionism, fulfillment theology, transference theology, or absorptionism, they all amount to the same basic denigration of the Jews and ultimately of national Israel in the present Christian dispensation. (3)

Consequently, the Augustinian legacy kept the Jews dispersed, disgraced, and depressed—except for the hope of their individual conversion at the end of this age when they would then become absorbed into the one true, holy, catholic, apostolic church. (5)

Sometimes Horner slips back into the use of anti-Semitism, and these slips confirm this point.

Herein lies a fundamental point of difference that I regard to be at the heart of much amillennial allegiance to anti-Semitic eschatology. (212)

Melanie Phillips reported opposition to Israel being motivated by anti-Semitism that is deeply rooted in Christian replacement theology. (313)

Offensive as this thesis is, Horner in the abstract might be right. I don’t think he is, but he is allowed to try to make a case even for this offensive thesis. My point here at any rate is not to refute that thesis. My point is simply to make clear what it really is. Let no one be confused by the novel terminology, anti-Judaism. Horner’s thesis really is that Amillennialism is necessarily more or less anti-Semitic.
 

The Purpose of Horner’s Thesis
Before I proceed to respond to Horner, it is important to understand a couple of things about Horner’s thesis in Future Israel. The first is this. Horner is writing as a Calvinist to Calvinists.

Now I am using the term, Calvinist, here in preference to Reformed for a couple of reasons. Horner is, I assert here and will prove later, a Dispensationalist in his approach to eschatology. While forms of Premillennialism are consistent with being Reformed, I reject with most other theologians the idea that Dispensationalism and Reformed theology can logically cohere. I will admit that many soteriological Calvinists have been and are Dispensational. Hence, I prefer the term, Calvinist, to describe Horner. In the sense I am using the term, Calvinist, it is broader than the word, Reformed, and encompasses all those to whom Horner is addressing himself.  (One correspondent suggested that an even better word here than Calvinist would be predestinarian.  True enough, Calvin was certainly not ambivalent about Horner’s thesis.  In our day, at least in my experience, however, Calvinist means someone who holds the five points of Calvinism and not necessarily any other part of Calvin’s system.)

In his “Personal Introduction” he makes clear his bona fides as a convert to Calvinism. He speaks of the life-changing experience it was for him to read Luther’s Bondage of the Will. (i) His goal is, then, to persuade Calvinists that is not necessary to throw the baby of Premillennialism out with the bath water of Arminianism. The agenda of commending Premillennialism to Calvinists is identical to that of John MacArthur. Thus, it is not surprising that Horner’s book bears MacArthur’s heartfelt commendation.

To the end of commending Premillennialism to Calvinists, Horner marshals many names precious to Calvinists who, he believes, were his kind of Premillennialists. By this I mean men who believed in a distinct national and territorial future for ethnic Israel. Now the propriety of Horner’s citation of these men may be in some cases be questioned. But he cites the Puritan, Jeremiah Burroughs (xv), Horatius Bonar (xvi, 9), J. C. Ryle (xviii), and C. H. Spurgeon (11) in his “Personal Introduction” and Chapter 1, “Israel and Christian Anti-Judaism in Contrast.”

The reason, therefore, that Horner puts forward and pursues his thesis in Future Israel is quite personal. This may explain the excess of heat in the form of the many unnecessary and unscholarly adjectives and adverbs he applies to his opponent’s positions in the book. Like MacArthur, Horner is urgently concerned to make the case for a Calvinistic Premillennialism which holds a distinct national and territorial future for ethnic Israel. For whatever reason, these men feel that making such a case is urgent and justifies considerable vehemence of tone and language.

The Application of Horner’s Thesis
Another thing about Horner’s thesis which it is crucial to understand is to whom it applies. Now I stated Horner’s thesis this way: Amillennialism is necessarily more or less anti-Semitic. Of course, therefore, his thesis applies to Amillennialists, but I must sharpen this generalization to make more clear exactly what raises Horner’s ire. (I know the use of the word, ire, sounds pejorative, but I simply ask anyone who thinks I am being unfair to read the book and see if the word, ire, is not appropriate. At any rate, ire—anger—is not necessarily sinful. Furthermore, if we are really anti-Semitic, then a little ire against would not be sinful.)

I think it is right to say that what bothers Horner is not so much Amillennialism, but what goes along with Amillennialism. That is the denial of a distinct territorial and national future for ethnic Israel. Now I have to confess that at points in my first reading of Horner’s book I felt a little confused about who qualifies as a friend or a foe of his position.

For instance, it is not at all sufficient in Horner’s eyes to affirm a future mass conversion of Israel into the Church. Unless such a mass conversion restores Israel’s distinct, national and territorial place in the world, it is only one more instance of the Christian denigration of Israel. (5, 39-40).

A further illustration of what caused my confusion is found in these facts. Some Premillennialists apparently are not friends of Horner’s position. Justin Martyr, the Historic Premillennialist, is not according to Horner a friend of his view. (210, 215, 264) Some Postmillennialists seem to be Horner’s friends. He has a long and basically positively excursus on Jonathan Edwards at the end of the book (333f.). He says: “Although Edwards’ perspective differs somewhat from the premillennialism that this volume upholds, with regard to the issue of the Jews, the land of Israel, and the millennium, we can largely agree with his attitude and expectations.” (334)

In this regard I have to take issue with Horner’s assertion that there are “three major schools of eschatology” (xvii) (eschatological positions) among Christians. It is clear that Horner emphatically disagrees with Covenant or Historic Premillennialism and its identification of the Church as Israel. He is much closer, as we have seen, to some Postmillennialists than to such Premillennialists. This makes clear that there are really four major schools of Christian eschatology, and two of them are Premillennial. One is Dispensational Premillennialism with its clear separation of the Church and Israel. One is Historic Premillennialism which beginning with Justin Martyr identified the Church as Israel. This distinction needs to be clearly maintained if the true state of the eschatological debate is to be understood. I doubt that Premillennialists like Bonar and Spurgeon and Burroughs can be identified as Dispensationalists. (No, actually, I am certain they cannot be!) But it may be that they represent a kind of mediating position that Horner has uncovered for us. This must be explored later.

Actually, I think it might have made more sense, given his views, for Horner to have said that there are two schools of eschatology. If Horner had done this, it would, I think, have been a consistent outworking of his position. For Horner there is, first, the Pro-National Israel Eschatology. There is, second, the Anti-National Israel Eschatology. In other words, there are those who affirm a distinct national and territorial future for ethnic Israel in the promised land, and there are those who do not. This is the real divide in Christian eschatology for Horner. Listen to this remarkable statement:

A most important matter that needs to be clarified at this juncture concerns the crucial distinction that must be appreciated between the overriding significance of Israel in the Word of God and relatively lesser matters of eschatological concern, as with regard to the antichrist, the great tribulation, the rapture, etc. The nature and role of Israel in the Bible is transcendently more important than the aforementioned details, though they may necessarily call for serious consideration of lesser proportions. Furthermore, with regard to Israel we are not dealing with a doctrinal emphasis that has little relationship to Christian ethics. Quite the contrary, as our study will unquestionably prove, the wrong perception of Israel and the Jews by Christians, biblically speaking has produced consequences of horrific proportions during the history of the Christian Church in all its strands. (xviii-xix).

Actually, Horner has in a way embraced the twofold division of eschatological positions I am suggesting here. He speaks of “Judeo-centric Eschatology.” You are either for it or against it!

All that was said in the previously makes clear the essence of biblical eschatology for Horner. What is it? It is the affirmation of a distinct national and territorial future for ethnic Israel. It is the rejection of what he calls Supercessionism or Replacement Theology. To him these are the decisive affirmation and decisive rejection which make or break a Christian eschatology. Consider the following statements of Horner.

With regard to the Augustinian legacy of Israel’s displacement by the Christian church as the new spiritual Israel, the accepted terms of “replacement theology” and “supercessionism” will be used interchangeably. Some authors vigorously renounce associations with these designations and often attempt to argue against their validity. Nevertheless, for all such verbal ducking and weaving by those who in reality are supercessionists they are unable to obscure obvious identification with the same essential anti-Judaic spirit that substitutes concepts such as “progression,” transference,” and “fulfillment.” (xx)

In a nutshell then, the issue here concerns whether Israel, incorporating individuality, nationality, and territory has a future according to the mind of Abraham’s God. (xx)

Do believing Gentiles have any ongoing responsibilities toward unbelieving national Israel that include acknowledgement of a distinct covenantal future? (1)

Whatever the terminology that is used concerning this perspective, whether replacement theology, supercessionism, fulfillment theology, transference theology, or absorptionism, they all amount to the same basic denigration of the Jews and ultimately of national Israel in the present Christian dispensation. (3)

What, then, is the premier issue for Horner? The issue is that the Church is not Israel. The issue is that whatever position rejects the affirmation of a distinct national and territorial future for ethnic Israel is Supercessionism. It does not matter if that position likes being called by such a name. It does not matter if those who advocate it, in fact, renounce Replacement Theology. If you reject the idea of a distinct national and territorial future for ethnic Israel in the promised land, it all amounts to the same thing for Horner. You are guilty of the capital eschatological crime of Supercessionism and, furthermore, you are anti-Judaic (which is to say, anti-Semitic).

Now all this means indisputably that Horner is arguing for what we know as Dispensationalism. The premier sine qua non of Dispensationalism is the separation of the Church and Israel called by it “the Church/Israel distinction.” I will grant that Horner may be arguing in a different way and with a different emphasis and with a willingness to recruit co-belligerents from other camps than previous Dispensationalists. He is assuming and arguing Dispensationalism nonetheless. And the collision with central teachings of the New Testament is just as real.

One last thing, then, needs to be said. Horner is actually and proudly willing to say that he is arguing for Judeo-centric eschatology. He remarks: “… we coin the term “Judeo-centric Eschatology” …” (xvi). Now, to be fair Horner thinks this is consistent with holding to a Christocentric eschatology (xvii). (It is fair to wonder whether being Judeo-centric and Christocentric in eschatology are really coherent. Are Jewishness and Christ really equivalent? Is Future Israel the fulfillment of the Old Testament or Christ and His people?) Here is what I think. I think that there is something here that goes to the heart of our whole view of Christianity. It is hard to underestimate how vital it is to Christianity that it claims to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Personally, I think this claim is central and essential to Christianity. If Christianity is not the fulfillment of the Old Testament, what in the world is it? Judeo-centric eschatology is committed to saying that a distinct national and territorial future for ethnic Israel is the real fulfillment of the Old Testament. Ultimately, Horner and those who agree with him will have to face and answer this question. Is Christianity the true fulfillment of the Old Testament? Or is a distinct national and territorial future for ethnic Israel that fulfillment? The way they answer this question will determine whether their eschatology is Christian at all.

 Summary

Earlier I mentioned that part of any book review involves the reviewer providing a survey of the structure of the book. Having given my understanding of the theme of Horner’s book, I want provide an overview of its structure. I cannot say that Horner’s book is carefully structured, it has an impressionistic feel to me. It seems like the same ideas and language recycle over and over again throughout the book. Nevertheless, there is a general movement to be discerned. This general movement helps us to isolate several important issues that this review will need to address.

The Personal Introduction and Chapter 1 (“Israel and Anti-Judaism in Contrast”) are, as we have seen, thematic in character. They provide Horner’s thematic statements for the book.

Chaptes 2-5 provide a kind of historical review of Christian Anti-Judaism. Chapter 2 is entitled “Israel and Cenuries of Christian Anti-Judaism. Chapter 3 is “Israel and Contemporary Examples of Christian Anti-Judaism in the US.” Chapter 4 is “Israel and Contemporary Examples of Christian Anti-Judaism in the UK.” Chapter 5 is “Israel and Christian Encounter with Zionism.”

Chapters 6-8 address the important hermeneutical issues associated with Horner’s thesis. Chapters 6 and 7 are entitled respectively, “Israel and Anti-Judaic Hermeneutics in History,” and “Israel and Anti-Judaic Hermeneutics Today.” Chapter 8 is interesting and deserves separate discussion: “Israel and the Harmony of Spiritual Materiality.”

Chapters 9-10 address topical or doctrinal issues and are entitled respectively: “Israel and the Inheritance of the Land through Abraham” and Israel and a Romans 11 Synthesis.”

Chapters 11-12 conclude the book on a more practical note. These two chapters challenge Christians to rightly relate to the Jews. They are respectively entitled: “Israel as God’s Beloved Enemy” (based on the language of Rom. 11:28) and “Israel in need of the Prodigal Gentile’s Love” (ideas and language derived from Luke 15).

 The book concludes with five excurses.

A. Jonathan Edwards and the Future of Israel
B. J. C. Ryle and the Future of Israel
C. God’s Dealings with Israel—By Grace or Law?
D. Melanie Phillips and Replacement Theology
E. Annotated Bibliography

 This overview of the contents of Horner’s work provides an agenda of sorts for this review.

Specific Evaluations:

 Evaluation

 Is what Horner calls Supercessionism really Anti-Semitic?

The first and premier question which Horner’s book requires we address is this. Is the Augustinian stream of Amillennialism and eschatological thinking really guilty of being Anti-Judaic (Anti-Semitic)? I made the point earlier that Horner’s substitution of Anti-Judaism for Anti-Semitism does not lessen the accusation of racism implicit in this epithet. Horner thinks that all Supercessionists are necessarily to some degree racist. Or perhaps better stated, he thinks that Supercessionism as a system necessarily leads to or involves racism. It denigrates the Jews. It is clear that he regards Amillennialism, therefore, as racist. It is also clear that he regards all Supercessionism as at least incipiently racist. We have also showed that Supercessionism for Horner includes all those who reject the idea of a distinct national and territorial future for ethnic Israel in the promised land-whether they think this is a fair description of their views or not.

Now one’s first reaction to such a claim is that it is a wild generalization. At second glance one realizes that there is in a certain way a kind of plausibility in this claim. To put it differently, this is a claim that it is difficult to refute. It is unlikely in the extreme that anyone who holds a “Judeocentric eschatology” would ever be guilty of Anti-Judaism. By definition this is the last thing of which someone holding this position would be guilty. Now I admit, therefore, that you will be unlikely to find much Anti-Semitism in the sense of Anti-Judaism in Horner’s eschatological camp.

There is another thing that gives a kind of plausibility to Horner’s claim. There certainly have been those in the camp of those he calls Supercessionists who have been guilty of genuine Anti-Judaism. Luther’s Anti-Semitic statements are well-known. The evidence Horner provides makes me willing (for the sake of argument at least) to admit that Augustine may have supported a milder form of Anti-Semitism.

Why, then, do such facts not justify Horner’s thesis? I have a number of answers to this question.

                        First Response

Here is my first major response. They do not justify his thesis because they do not prove that the rejection of Horner’s Judeocentric eschatology necessarily leads to Anti-Semitism. Granted, some Amillennialists have been Anti-Semites. But Premillennialism is the eschatology of the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Mormons, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Premillennialism is frequently associated with the serious doctrinal error of Second Chance-ism. Many Premillennialists teach in other words that men will have a second chance to be saved after the Second Coming of Christ during the tribulation or the millennium. These are indisputable facts, but they do not mean that Premillennialism is cultic or leads necessarily to heresy or serious doctrinal error. Even so what Horner calls Supercessionism may be historically associated with Anti-Semitism in the sense of Anti-Judaism, but this does not mean that it is its sufficient or efficient cause.

Furthermore, few or no Amillennialists (especially compared to Premillennialists) have been guilty of teaching that men have a second chance to be saved. So also few Judeocentric Premillennialists are likely to be guilty of Anti-Semitism. These are interesting facts, but they do not prove anything relevant to the subject at hand. Every error makes men immune to other errors.

A man’s infatuation with the wrong woman may make the man immune to the attractions of other women who would also be bad life-choices for him, but this does not prove that the first infatuation is a good thing.

The situation is like this. Premillennialism unlocks the door to Second Chance-ism, but it does not make anyone open that door. Similarly, I may admit that the rejection of a Judeocentric eschatology unlocks the door to Anti-Semitism, but does not mean that anyone walks through the door or has to walk through the door.

One more illustration may be the best of all. Hyper-Calvinists are not likely to be Open Theists, but this does not mean that Hyper-Calvinism is right. It does not mean that Hyper-Calvinism is the only protection against Open Theism. Similarly, Premillennialists of Horner’s stripe may not be Anti-Semitic, but this does not mean that the only protection against Anti-Semitism in the sense of Anti-Judaism is Judeocentric eschatology.

                        Second Response

A second major response may be offered to the claim that Supercessionism that leads to Anti-Judaism. Here it is.  It is not Supercessionism that leads to Anti-Judaism. It is Constantinianism. What do I mean? Augustine and Luther were both under the spell of sacralism. This is the idea that the civil state is also and necessarily a religious entity. This leads directly to the idea that there can be only one religion in the state. The toleration of more religions than one undermines the integrity of the state. This idea dominated all pre-Christian states including the Judaic state of the Old Testament. It came to dominate Christianity for almost a millennium and a half through the accession of the “Christian” Constantine to the throne of the Roman Empire. If you had been a Christian at the time living under the terrible persecution that preceded Constantine’s reign, you would have probably thought that the accession of Constantine was a very good thing. If there had been a vote for emperor, Constantine would have carried it by wide margins! Constantinianism may have been a good thing short-term for Christians. Long-term, however, it proved to be a very bad thing for Christianity. Constantine and the succeeding emperors brought with them to the throne certain assumptions. They brought with them the sacral assumption of one religion for one state. They brought with them the assumption that they should be the earthly leader of that religion. These assumptions led inevitably to the outlawing of non-Christian religions and then to the outlawing of non-Catholic Christian religions. This is what I mean when I speak of Constantinianism.

The Donatists in the 5th Century were a rival Christian sect opposed to the Catholic churches in North Africa. Augustine’s crusade against them may have been motivated by legitimate theological concerns, but it was aided by the Imperial government and its armed forces. Augustine, in other words, notwithstanding all the wonderful things he did and wrote, was dreadfully wrong when it came to the separation of church and state.

To speak shortly, we may say the same thing about Luther. He was also dominated by the Constantinian ideal of sacralism. This is why he subjected the Lutheran churches in Germany to its civil rulers and princes. This is also why he called on them to reform the churches within the bounds of their respective domains. He was also still under the spell of sacralism.

Now sacralism introduces a poisonous element into the discussions of the most legitimate Christian doctrines. One only needs to read the horrible and rancorous debates and politics of the early councils dealing with the person of Christ to see abundant evidence of this. The rancor and politics were largely due to the intrusion of imperial authority into the affairs of the church.

This is the true explanation of the Anti-Semitism that scars the face of the Christian tradition. When Constantine embraced Christianity, but failed to give up at the same time his sacral understanding of society and the presumption of a right to rule his empire’s religions, this politicized Christianity and theology. This politicizing of Christian theology would straightforwardly turn a divine judgment on the Jews by God into a civil persecution of the Jews by the “Holy” Roman Empire. A sacral mindset assumes that the government has the duty to back up with outward force everything God does and says. If God judged the Jews and drove them from the promised land, then sacralism assumes that it is the duty of the government and its citizens to reinforce this judgment by themselves persecuting the Jews. It is this vicious idea that mistakes divine judgment for civil law that leads to Anti-Semitism in Christians. This—not Amillennialism and not so-called Supercessionism—is the true, sufficient, and efficient cause of the persecution of the Jews by Christians.

                        Third Response

Lest someone say that it is interesting that I don’t include Calvin or his line in the Augustine-Luther Constinianism, let me add a few words about Calvin and the Reformed tradition.

First, I certainly admit that there has been not a little of the Reformed tradition that has also been under the spell of sacralism. Yes, including Calvin. There is no question that views that were to some extent sacral were at work in the various Reformed state churches of Europe including Geneva. The original Westminster Confession (not the revised version originating in the 1780’s in the USA) is also distinctly sacral in some of its statements.

Second, Calvin is not so important here because Horner dwells on Augustine’s legacy in his book. Take a brief look at the subject index (382), and you will see the priority of Augustine to Calvin in the book. Luther is mentioned more prominently here because Horner says that it was reading Luther’s Bondage of the Will which made him a predestinarian or soteriological Augustinian (xiii).

Third, there is a pronounced movement away from sacralism in the Reformed tradition. There is a well-known distinction between the Lutheran tendency to Erastianism (a form of sacralism) and a different approach in the Reformed tradition. This movement away from sacralism actually began in Geneva when Calvin insisted in a long struggle with the city council that the elders of the church and not the civil magistrates of Geneva controlled who came to the Lord’s Supper. This was only a seed which took a long time to germinate in Reformed theology. It did, however, contain the germinal principle which developed into the idea of the free church in the Reformed tradition. This seed finally grew into the idea of the separation of church and state and freedom of religion in the Particular Baptist and Congregationalists of the Puritan tradition in England. Similar free church developments took place in Holland as well.

I do not feel protective of Calvin and the Reformed tradition on this issue. I admit that sacralism was present in the Reformed tradition, but it was everywhere else (except perhaps Anabaptism) as well. Calvin himself, however, planted the seed which eventually grew into the tree that uprooted sacralism in the Reformed tradition.

                        Fourth Response

Here let me suggest another reason why this link between “Supercessionism” and “Anti-Semitism” that Horner seeks to forge is incorrect.

This reason is rooted in a fact which Horner himself acknowledges. It provides, I think, a telling argument against the connection he seeks to forge between Anti-Semitism and “Supercessionism”. I have suggested in contrast to Horner that the actual cause of Anti-Semitism among Christians is the Constantinian or sacral assumptions imported into the Church early in her history. The fact Horner acknowledges suggests that the account I have given of the origin of Anti-Semitism is actually correct. The fact is this. In modern times under the influence of biblical views and a political climate that are not sacral and Constantinian a number of churches have renounced and even repented their Anti-Semitic pasts. Yet, (and here is the key point) they have done this without renouncing what Horner calls their “Supercessionism.” Horner notes this occurring in Roman Catholicism and several other Christian denominations. (149, 150, 156) He notes, however, (and the admission is telling in my opinion) that “none of these specifically declare agreement with Israel’s divine covenantal rights in terms of ethnicity, nationality, and territory.” (150) In another place he acknowledges that one Lutheran denomination renounces the Anti-Semitism of Luther and its own past, but does this in a document which affirms Amillnnialism! (156)

Does not this widespread rejection of their Anti-Semitic pasts by Christian churches without giving up what Horner calls “Supercessionism” suggest that the origin of Anti-Semitism is not Supercessionism but sacralism? To put this differently and more positively, it is not because of a rejection of “Supercessionism” that these churches have rejected Anti-Semitism! It is rather because of a rejection of the sacralism that tainted past ages of the Church, but which a better understanding of the Bible and a different political climate have allowed the Church today to see for the poisonous doctrine it is!

                        Fifth Response

Another problem with saying that “Supercessionism” is the cause of Anti-Semitism is that this amounts to a very strange and eccentric definition of Anti-Semitism. For Horner anything but affirming the idea of a distinct national and territorial future for ethnic Israel in the promised land is Supercessionist and, therefore, Anti-Semitic. As I have shown, for Horner it is not enough to affirm even a future mass conversion of Israel into the Church. You have to affirm the idea of a distinct national and territorial future for ethnic Israel in the promised land. So anything but this view of eschatology, then, is Anti-Semitic!

But surely this is a definition of Anti-Semitism that is very difficult to defend. One, then, is Anti-Semitic on Horner’s view even if he believes Jews and Gentiles are on equal standing before God. He is Anti-Semitic even if he believes they ought to enjoy equal human rights before men! Even if he believes that they ought to receive equally redemptive love from the Church, one is Anti-Semitic! Yes, and furthermore, one is Anti-Semitic even if one believes that a great revival will take place among the Jews and sweep the vast majority of them into the Church before the end. Yes, and yet further, one is Anti-Semitic even if one favors a moderately pro-Israel policy in the Middle East for political and ethical reasons, as I do! Unless one thinks that the Temple is to be rebuilt in Jerusalem, unless one believes that a ethnically Jewish Empire is yet to rule the world in which physical Jewish-ness is essential to being part of the ruling elite,–unless you believe this–you are Anti-Semitic.

But, wait, there is more! Commonly, Dispensationalism affirms that two-thirds of the population of the restored Israel during the Tribulation will be massacred by the Anti-Christ. It is difficult to see how a view which affirms this kind of blood-bath for Israel can so blithely and boldly accuse other Christians of being Anti-Semitic—and do this just because they reject this way of interpreting the Bible and especially the Old Testament!

Another question which Horner’s view raises is this. Are we allowed to believe what the Bible teaches about God judging Israel by the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD (Matthew 23:34-38)? Yet more, are we allowed to believe that the exile of Israel from the land of Palestine from 70 until at least 1948 and in some sense even till today was the judgment of God (Luke 21:20-24)? Is it Anti-Semitic to believe that “the wrath of God has come on them to the uttermost” (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)? Or is it Anti-Semitism to believe what one would have thought are self-evident biblical truths?

Of course, these truths are no reason to persecute Jews–denying them basic human rights or the redemptive love that every unbeliever ought to be shown. God’s decree is never the rule for human conduct. This is the straightforward implication of the basic and essential biblical distinction between God’s decretive (secret) will and God’s preceptive (revealed) will (Deut. 29:29; Gen. 50:20). It is no violation of God’s decree to try to help and try to redeem those God has cursed in this way. Indeed, God’s decree in this sense cannot be violated because its fulfillment is certain and irresistible in every detail. But God’s decree ought never to be made the rule for our conduct! It is only the poisonous doctrine of sacralism that cannot see that the state is not God’s instrument to accomplish and enforce His decree.

                        Sixth Response

In answering Horner’s charge that “Supercessionism” is Anti-Semitic, it is finally necessary to challenge the description, Supercessionism. Let us grant for the sake of argument that some plausibility is given to Horner’s charge of Anti-Semitism by the descriptions, Supercessionism and Replacement Theology. In other words, the idea that those who reject the idea of a distinct national and territorial future for ethnic Israel in the promised land think that the Church has replaced or superseded Israel does “seem” to demean Israel in some way . Let me also grant that some who hold my understanding of eschatology have (unwisely in my view) described their view of the relation of the Church and Israel with words like “supersede” and “replacement.”

Yet I challenge the accuracy of such descriptions and, indeed, reject them as adequate descriptions of what I believe or the Bible teaches. To speak bluntly, I and many other contemporary Amillennialists wholly reject such terminology and the implications it seems to convey.

To speak of the Church replacing Israel is to forget that the Church is a reformed and expanded Israel. In a word, terminology like Replacement Theology or Supersessionism disguises the biblical fact that the Church is really the continuation of Israel. There is a genetic and even physical continuity between Israel and the Church that is essential to the biblical view of the relation of the Church and Israel. Such continuity, I would argue, is consistent with Covenant Theology. It is, additionally, not adequately represented by terminology like Supersessionism and Replacement Theology.

The Church has an ethnically Jewish origin and constitution. Once I heard a radio preacher arguing that everything up to Acts 10 in the New Testament was Jewish ground. He was right, but for a reason he did not realize. The whole New Testament (Let us be clear about it!) is Jewish ground! But on what basis do I affirm this? Why must it be affirmed that the Church today is a Jewish institution?

I affirm this, first of all, because the Church has a Jewish Savior and Mediator. Jesus the Christ was and had to be an ethnic Jew (Matt. 1:1-18)! Jesus Christ is, however, precisely in His office as Messiah and Mediator the origin and center of the Church’s existence. When he said that he would build His Church, He had just been named “the Christ, the Son of the living God” by Peter (Matt. 16:16-19). So it was as Messiah of the Jews that He would build His Church.

The Church, in the second place, also has a Jewish foundation. The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles (Mat. 16:16-19; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). The Apostles of Christ, even including Paul and James the Lord’s brother, were all ethnic Jews. The Gentiles who come to Christ and into the Church are built on a Jewish foundation and so become part of a Jewish house.

Yet further, the Church has in every generation a Jewish nucleus. According to Romans 11 God has an elect Jewish remnant in every generation. The Church is the one olive tree of Romans 11:16-24. It has a Jewish root and trunk. Additionally, it has believing Jewish branches and Gentile branches grafted in through the work of the Spirit and by faith.

For all these reasons, I affirm that the Church is in a physical and ethnic sense a Jewish institution. The Church has an ethnically Jewish Messiah, an ethnically Jewish apostolic foundation, and an ethnically Jewish membership nucleus. According to Ephesians 2:12-19 it is “the commonwealth of Israel” with perpetually ethnically Jewish citizens and now with formerly Gentile citizens who have become New Israelites by the circumcision made without hands. For all these reasons, descriptions like “Replacement Theology” or “Supercessionism” are quite misleading ways to describe the relation of the Church and Israel here affirmed.

This means, of course, that all the plausibility that such terminology provides to Horner’s thesis disappears. If the terminology is wrong and misleading precisely at the point of the Church’s relation to Israel, then the supposed support which it apparently provides to the charge of Anti-Semitism is also misleading. A true understanding of the Church as the New Israel is not Anti-Jewish. It is clearly Pro-Jewish from every reasonable viewpoint!

                        Seventh Response

Horner in many places affirms his support for Zionism and Christian Zionism (45, 52, and note the many references to Zionism in the index, 386). He also affirms (and he may be right) that there is a pro-Palestinian political bias in many of the “Supercessionist” writers he quotes. (53, 83) He further implies that there may be a capitulation to Islam in some of them as well in the sense of fearing to offend them by being pro-Jewish. (105, 139, 355)

Given the vast size of the Christian Zionist movement (compared to the “Supercessionist” camp), it is not surprising that some opponents of Christian Zionism feel a need to equalize things by being pro-Palestinian. It does seem clear in defense of their stance that there have been Jewish abuses and atrocities against Palestinians.[1]

It is certainly true that I and many others of my eschatological view reject as foolish the idea that the present political nation called Israel is a fulfillment of the prophecy of the restoration of Israel. The Bible is clear that this restoration is accompanied by repentance and an acceptance of the Jesus Christ as Messiah (Deut. 30:1-6; Ezekiel 37). No such repentance is visible in the state of modern Israel, but only a continued attachment to their idols. On a theological level, then, there is no reason to affirm a biblical right to the ancient promised land for the modern nation of Israel.

This does not mean that we must be anti-Israel on a political level. In fact, as a matter of my personal, political judgment I favor a moderately pro-Israel policy in the Middle East. I certainly regard the greater threat to Christianity and the USA to be radical Islam rather than the comparatively democratic and free Jewish state in Palestine. How can someone who holds a political position of this kind reasonably be called Anti-Semitic?

Critical Review of Barry Horner’s Future Israel

{Continued}

By Sam Waldron

 Horner, Barry, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged. B&H Academic: Nashville, TN. 2007. 394 pp.

What view of the fulfillment of the Old Testament do proper hermeneutics support?

In a previous article I enumerated a number of responses to the first of several questions raised by Horner in Future Israel.  The second question raised by Horner to which I wish to respond is this. What view of the fulfillment of the Old Testament do proper hermeneutics support? In chapters 6-8 Horner attempts to untangle the hermeneutical questions related to his condemnation of Supercessionism. I will reserve comment till a later point in this article on Chapter 8 which is entitled, “Israel and the Harmony of Spiritual Materiality.” I will first take up the thesis prosecuted in Chapters 6 and 7 which take up respectively Anti-Judaic Hermeneutics in history and today.

                        Racist Hermeneutics?

Now the first thing that occurs to mind when one reads the titles of these chapters is a kind of surprise that hermeneutics could be Anti-Judaic. One naturally assumes that hermeneutics are, well, hermeneutics. People may disagree about hermeneutics, but not because they are racists! Nevertheless, Horner sees here a race issue. Hermeneutics that lead to a denial of Israel’s distinctive territorial future are for him racially motivated. This is clear from what, I think, deserves to be called a kind of reverse racism that emerges in his language. He speaks of “Gentile logic,” (181) “Gentile blindness and bias … proud Gentile ascendancy,” (187) and in another place “a shameful anti-Judaic attitude,” (200).

This kind of language seems to me somewhat “racist” in its own way. It conveys prejudice against Gentiles. It is like Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s rantings against “White America.”  Should we conclude from such epithets that Gentiles are guilty because they are Gentiles of twisted logic and blind bias? Suppose we substitute for Horner’s “Gentile” epithet alternatives like “White,” “Black,” “Jap,” or “French.” Doesn’t language like “Jap logic,” “French blindness,” and “proud White ascendancy” seem a trifle racist?

This language of Horner, however, conveys vividly his thesis. Hermeneutics which do not take the Old Testament literally enough to predict a national and territorial future in the promised land for Israel are motivated by racism. They are motivated by a racist Gentile prejudice against Jews. This—make no mistake about it—is his thesis. On the face of it, however, such a thesis is difficult to impossible to prove. As we have said, he may be able to prove that some people who promoted the more figurative approach to the Old Testament did have attitudes which fairly may be called Anti-Semitic. What he cannot and does not prove is that their Anti-Semitism was the source or cause of their hermeneutics.

                        Reductio Ad Absurdum                    

But leaving this sad aspect of Horner’s treatment aside, we meet here a rather sophisticated discussion of the hermeneutical issues which divide him from the traditional Reformed approach to the Old Testament. He is aware that his opponents believe the Apostles and the New Testament interpret the Old Testament differently than he does. He attempts to explain this method of interpretation as an exceptional accommodation of the Old Testament not inconsistent with the literal approach he favors. He insists that a literal hermeneutic must be carried through rigorously. He argues that, when it is, a distinct territorial future for ethnic Israel in the promised land is the result. We must examine these claims.

One form of logical argument is called reductio ad absurdum. This form of argument critiques an opponent’s argument by showing that it actually leads to conclusions that are absurd or impossible. This is my first problem and one of my major problems with Horner’s brand of literalism. His kind of literal approach to the Old Testament leads to conclusions that are absurd and impossible.

Now notice that I have said “Horner’s brand of literalism” and “his kind of literal approach.” I am not opposed to a literal interpretation of Scripture rightly defined and rightly qualified. I am opposed to what Horner and his cohorts think of as literal interpretation.

And I am opposed to it, first, because it leads to all sorts of absurd conclusions. One of the ways—not the only way—to determine if a passage is to be interpreted in a prosaic or a figurative fashion is to ask if a prosaic (non-figurative) interpretation leads to conclusions that are inconsistent with the clear teaching of Scripture elsewhere. If it does, then such a method of interpreting the passage in question cannot be correct. This “clear teaching of Scripture elsewhere” is sometimes called “the analogy of faith.”

So what conclusions does Horner’s literalism lead him to? Here are some. The mention of David in Ezekiel is to be taken literally. Like Moses and Elijah he will have great prominence in the millennium. He is the prince mentioned in Ezekiel 45:22 who has literal sons and offers literal sin offerings for himself in the millennial temple. (165)

Speaking of sin offerings, Horner affirms that “purified Judaism will retain a distinctive role as the prophets make very clear” in the millennium. (177) He further asserts, “… so this perishing world will be renewed, yet retain essential connection with its original form. Certainly purified Judaism will be a distinctive part of that retained essence.” (177) He cites A. B. Davidson’s comments as “judicious.” Therefore, we may assume he agrees with Davidson when he remarks: “The Temple is real, for it is the place of Jehovah’s presence upon the earth; the ministers and minstrations are equally real, for His servants serve him in his temple. The service of Jehovah by sacrifice and offering is considered to continue when Israel is perfect and the kingdom is the Lord’s …” (178)

Horner clearly adopts a consistently literal interpretation of Ezekiel’s prophecies. It is fair, therefore, to assume that he regards its other assertions as consistently literal. Thus, we may assume that Horner believes that in the future there are tables for slaughtering burnt and sin offerings and the restoration of sin and guilt offerings and the sprinkling of blood on the altar (40:39; 43:18-27; 44:9-11, 13-15). He believes in the restoration of the Zadokite Levitical priesthood (40:46-47; 43:18-19; 44:9-11, 13-15). He believes that the temple is a holy place to which no one “uncircumcised in flesh” may come (41:4; 43:12, 13; 44:9-11). He believes that there will be holy garments that the priest are to wear only when they minister in the Temple (42:14; 44:17-18). He also believes in the restoration of the Shekinah glory overshadowing the Temple (43:1-14). He believes that this system will go on forever in the New Earth (43:7). He believes in the restoration of the ceremonial law in which contact with dead bodies creates ceremonial defilement (43:7). He believes that the altar will have to be cleansed before being used (43:18-27). There are special priestly laws about their haircuts, the consumption of alcoholic beverages and about marrying only virgins (44:20-22). The laws about ceremonial purity and defilement are restored, taught by the priests, and enforced by their judgments (44:23-24). There is the restoration of the religious calendar of the Old Testament including seventh-day Sabbath observance, new moons, and the year of Jubilee (44:24; 45:17; 46:1, 3, 16-17).

For many of you the mere enumeration of these consequences of Horner’s hermeneutic is sufficient to show you its absurdity. If it is not, a more particular examination will show that these consequences of Horner’s literal hermeneutic are inconsistent with the analogy of faith.

One of the indications that a passage is not to be taken literally is if its literal interpretation places it on a collision course with other clear teaching of Scripture. This principle of hermeneutics is often called “the analogy of faith”. It is based on the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. If Scripture is inerrant, then it cannot contradict itself. Now, of course, we must be careful in using this principle of interpretation not to impose on the Word of God the arbitrary determinations of human and fallen logic about what is contradictory and what is not. The history of theology is full of this kind of misuse of the analogy of faith, and we must be careful not to truncate what the Word of God may teach us by such proud, fallen logic.

Nevertheless, we must use logic in interpreting Scripture. Jesus used logic in interpreting the Old Testament. Cf. his interesting deductions in Luke 20:37-38 and its parallels. We should follow in Jesus’ footsteps. Thus, we cannot avoid the use of logic and, thus, the principle of “the analogy of faith” in interpreting Scripture.

We must, therefore, ask if the deliverances of a literal interpretation of Ezekiel’s later prophecies are consistent with the rest of Scripture and especially the New Testament. Horner’s consistently literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 provides an interesting test case to see if his and his fellows’ hermeneutic works!

In my view the indisputable answer to this question is that it does not. It contradicts the clear teachings of the New Testament at point after point. Let me provide some of the clearest ways in which this happens.

Horner thinks, and must think, that Ezekiel teaches the future re-institution of the Levitical priesthood (40:46-47; 43:18-19; 44:9-11, 13-15). The New Testament teaches that the Melchizedian priesthood of Christ means the abolition of the Levitical priesthood.

Hebrews 7:11-24: “Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. …. For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. …. The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.”

This passage does not merely teach that the Levitical priesthood is suspended until a future time. It teaches that it is replaced by a “better hope,” by the “perfection” of Christ, who holds “His priesthood permanently.”

Horner thinks, and must think, that the new moons, Sabbaths, and religious calendar is reinstituted in the Millennial Temple (44:24; 45:17; 46:1, 3, 16-17). The New Testament teaches that all such observances were typical of Christ and were fulfilled in His work. Their re-institution is viewed as a denial of the significance of Christ’s person and work.

Colossians 2:16-17: “Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day– things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”

Galatians 4:8-11: “However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.”

These passages do not merely teach that the observance of the religious calendar of the Old Testament is suspended awaiting a future re-institution in the Millennium. They teach that this religious calendar was “a shadow” which was fulfilled in Christ. From this fulfillment on such observances are described as “weak and worthless elemental things.” The very idea of the re-institution of such observances is distasteful to one who loves Christ and understands the implications of his work.

Horner thinks, and must think, that sin offerings are restored in the Millennial Temple (40:39; 43:18-27; 44:9-11, 13-15). Now I do not know how Horner explains the obvious conflict of this assertion with the teaching of the New Testament. He speaks of the “supposed conflict here with the abolishment of the Mosaic sacrificial order according to Hebrews.” (178) He never tells us, however, he explains this “supposed conflict.”

There is, of course, a well-known explanation which speaks of the “memorial” character of these sin-offerings. There are two problems with this. The one is that this explanation is itself a departure from consistently literal interpretation. Ezekiel never qualifies these sin offerings as “memorial,” but uses the exact language which elsewhere occurs with regard to the Old Testament sacrifices. As far as Ezekiel interpreted literally is concerned, these predicted sin offerings are no different than the ones offered in the Tabernacle and Temple from the time of the Exodus. The other problem is that it is not allowed to types and shadows to be memorials. By definition a type and shadow is fulfilled and abolished by the coming of its fulfillment.

The fact is that the New Testament teaches that as shadows sin offerings have been abolished by the death of Christ, the great and final sin offering. Consider Hebrews 10:8-18. Note especially the highlighted areas.

After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, “THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,” He then says, AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE.” Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.“

Lastly, Horner thinks, and must think, that physical circumcision and the exclusion of the physically uncircumcised from the Temple is re-instituted in the Millennium (41:4; 43:12, 13; 44:9-11). While fleshly circumcision, the observance of days, as well as certain rites of ritual purification are not absolutely forbidden in the New Testament (Acts 16:3 ; 21:20-24; Romans 14:5-6), they are connected to a temple worship and temporal considerations that were passing away under the judgment of God. From God’s point of view physical circumcision no longer mattered for acceptance with Him or acceptance into the true temple.  Romans 2:26 says:  “So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?”  Horner’s answer to Paul’s question would have to be, Not in the Millennial Temple, it won’t!

Hebrews 10:19-22 affirms:  “Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”  According to Horner Christians without being circumcised and only by virtue of the blood of Christ have a right to enter the true temple in heaven—the very presence of God—, yet in the Millennium they do not have a right to enter the Millennial Temple unless they are physically circumcised?  Horner is logically committed to saying this. His kind of literalism commits him to it.

The Bible teaches a more Christian hermeneutic. It says that Christians without circumcision made by hands are full members of God’s people, Israel, in its New Covenant form. It teaches most clearly that without physical circumcision, they are fellow-citizens of the commonwealth of Israel (Eph. 2:12-19).

I am entirely unmoved and unimpressed by arguments that there might be a future reinstitution of the sacrificial system, circumcision, the temple, dietary law, and the religious calendar consistent with the teaching of the New Testament. It seems to me that one text alone puts an end to this kind of fanciful speculation. It is Hebrews 10:1: “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.”  Note also Hebrews 8:1-6: “Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “SEE,” He says, “THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN.” But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.” This text actually and clearly implies that if the law is reinstituted, then Jesus himself would not be qualified to be a priest in that Temple.  Both these passage make clear that the relation of the Law to the New order in Christ is that of shadow to substance. Note the reference to “true tabernacle.” Not true as opposed to false, but to true as opposed to shadow.  The relation of the Old to the New according to Hebrews is that of shadow to true. This reigning paradigm of the New Testament by itself necessitates a figurative interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48.

                        The True (New Testament) Interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48

My claim that the “literal” interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 is in direct conflict with the teaching of the New Testament naturally raises the question. Well, then, what does it mean?  On general terms, we may say that the New Testament teaches explicitly that many of the things in Ezekiel 40-48 are types and shadows of the Christian order. The law had only a shadow of things to come (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:16-17). So the things prophesied in Ezekiel 40-48 are shadows of the good things to come. This means a number of things. The Levitical priesthood was a shadow of the true priesthood of Christ and pointed forward to Him. He is the fulfillment of the Zadokite priests of Ezekiel (Heb. 7:11-14). The religious calendar assumed in Ezekiel was a shadow pointing forward to Christ. He brings the rest promised in the seventh-day Sabbath, the new moons, and the other appointed religious festivals of the Old Covenant (Col. 2:16-17; Gal. 4:8-11). The change in the day of rest from seventh to first is emblematic of this change and cannot be reversed. The sin and guilt offerings are a shadow pointing forward to Christ’s great sin-offering (Heb. 10:19-21). This was presented for acceptance in the true tabernacle above (Heb. 8:5). Circumcision was a type and shadow of the New Israel circumcised in heart by the work of Christ (Rom. 2:25-29; Eph. 2:11-13; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11). We are the true circumcision who worship by the Spirit of God.

The Temple itself finds its fulfillment in Christ who became flesh and tabernacled among us (John 1:14; 2:19). Alternatively, the true tabernacle is the throne of God in heaven itself (Heb. 8:5). This throne of God comes down from heaven in the New Jerusalem when God Himself and His throne come to the renewed earth. In one sense in the renewed earth there is no Temple (Rev. 21:22). That is, in the sense of the physical temple of the Old Testament period which was a shadow. In another sense there is a temple/tabernacle. God tabernacles among us (Rev. 21:3). There is a throne of God (of which the mercy-seat in the Old Testament temple was a type) from which flows the river of life and along which grows the tree of life (Rev. 22:1-4). God and the Lamb are the true temple in the redeemed earth (Rev. 21:22). It is not the physically uncircumcised who are banished from this Temple, but the really unclean morally (Rev. 21:8, 27; 22:15).

And here we find clear pointers to the New Testament interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48. The tree and river of life predicted in Ezekiel do not flow from a physical temple. There is no such temple in the new earth. They flow from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Here is a clear interpretation of Ezekiel by the New Testament. In Ezekiel the river flows from the temple (Ezekiel 47:1). In Revelation the river flows from the throne of God and of the Lamb in the absence of a physical temple of the Old Testament type (Rev. 21:22; 22:1-4). The healing waters of the river give rise to the tree of life. This is the fulfillment of Ezekiel 47:7-12 according to the New Testament.

All this will seem wildly figurative to those of Horner’s hermeneutical mindset. Yet I challenge them to make sense of these clear New Testament references to the ultimate fulfillment of Ezekiel. I do not think they can apart from the realization that there is something drastically wrong with their hermeneutic. It is not this interpretation of the New Testament that is wildly figurative. It is their hermeneutic of the Old Testament that is wildly wrong.[2]

                        Horner’s Explanation of the New Testament Interpretation of the Old

I have shown that the New Testament in Revelation 21-22 finds the fulfillment of Ezekiel 47 and 48 in Christ Himself and in the Redeemed Earth. Horner has, however, a response ready for those who cite the use of Old Testament texts like Ezekiel 40-48 in the New Testament. I would describe this response as asserting that the New Testament often uses an accommodating hermeneutic in its quotation of the Old Testament. This accommodating use of the Old Testament was never intended to invalidate the original, literal meaning of the Old Testament. The New Testament’s flexible use of the Old Testament does not overturn the true and original, literal meaning of the Old Testament. Here are Horner’s own words.

If this basic hermeneutical principle is true, it opens up a world of understanding concerning how the Hebrew writers of the NT could legitimately quote from the OT in a more applicatory, illustrative sense without invalidating the original literal meaning. (182)

The reason is that the author of Hebrews was comfortable with the flexible use of the OT in a number of ways. Therefore, it is both cavalier and misleading to suggest that a controlling NT hermeneutic kicks in, so to speak, with the result that the original meaning of the OT quotations is now invalidated. (184)

I conclude that the hermeneutic of reinterpretation and transference is illegitimate, which takes the adapted quotation of the OT in the NT to be justification for nullifying the literal interpretation of that same OT passage. (185)

It is very likely that on occasion the New Testament does utilize Old Testament language in the way of accommodation. I think of Paul’s use of Psalm 19:4 in Romans 10:18: “But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; “THEIR VOICE HAS GONE OUT INTO ALL THE EARTH, AND THEIR WORDS TO THE ENDS OF THE WORLD.” In Psalm 19 these words refer to the universal extent of general revelation, while Paul accommodates them to describe the universal proclamation of the gospel then proceeding. The words, I think, are accommodated and are not intended to reveal some deep inner meaning of Psalm 19:4. It is important to note, however, that Paul never says that the gospel of Christ being preached in all the world is the fulfillment of Psalm 19:4. He simply borrows familiar language and adapts it to the new universality of special revelation. He does not say as Peter did of Joel’s prophecy in Acts 2:16: “… this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel.”

This is far different than the proposal of Horner and friends. They propose by their “flexible use of the Old Testament” that the true, literal fulfillment of the Old Testament is not Christianity. Christianity is merely the “accommodated application” of the Old Testament. Millennial Judaism with its literal temple and sacrifices in Jerusalem is the true and real fulfillment of the Old Testament. Now surely this is an extraordinary claim, but it is a claim to which Horner’s approach to the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament directly leads.

Let me repeat this for emphasis. (For surely it needs emphasis.) The direct implication of Horner’s hermeneutic is that Christianity is only an accommodation of the Old Testament and not its true fulfillment. This implication of Horner’s view of the interpretation of the Old Testament shows how truly revolutionary or revisionist this form of premillennialism is. Christ’s priesthood is, then, only an accommodation of the predictions of the New Testament. Christ’s circumcision is only an illustration. Christ’s sacrifice is not the fulfillment of the Old Testament. On this sort of hermeneutic is there any certainty that Christ Himself is the fulfillment of the Old Testament? Perhaps the millennial and resurrected David for whom Horner looks is that fulfillment and not his greater (?) son.

Let me be clear that I am far from thinking that Horner holds or wants to hold that Christianity and Christ are not the fulfillment of the Old Testament. He speaks of a “Christ-centered hermeneutic.” (195) But having acknowledged this, it is necessary to point out the direct, logical results of his hermeneutic. The result is that Christianity is no longer the fulfillment of the Old Testament. It is rather its accommodated application. Such a conclusion raises serious questions about the divine authority of Christianity. If it is not the fulfillment of the Old Testament, what in the world is it? A hermeneutic that leads to such questions cannot be Christian.[3]

                        Spiritual Materiality?

Before I pass on to other subjects in this critique, it is necessary to comment briefly on chapter 8 of Horner’s work. It is entitled “Israel and the Harmony of Spiritual Materiality.” Here I must admit some sympathy for Horner’s attempt to say that in the Bible materiality is not un-spiritual. Generally speaking, I thoroughly agree with this perspective. In this chapter Horner, in fact, cites something favorably I said in End Times Made Simple. (216, 217) I agree that sometimes Amillennialists have gone “over the top” in their inveighing against the “carnality” of Premillennialism.

Let me be clear, then, that I do believe there is a material and physical fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies. When older Amillennialists attempted to make these prophecies refer to some spiritual reality in the church today, their interpretations sometimes stretched the bounds of credibility. In reality many Old Testament prophecies speak of very physical realities in the kingdom of God in the new earth. Heaven (in the sense of some place else than planet earth) is not the final hope of believers. Being with a bodily Christ in a redeemed and new earth is. Such a hope is emphatically not carnal. Neither is the aspiration to a physical, glorified body received in the resurrection carnal. Here are the quotations from End Times Made Simple to which Horner refers and in which I make the admission he cites.

This doctrine enables us to answer the best argument of both pre- and postmillennialists. What is this argument? It is the countless Old Testament and New Testament prophecies that clearly prophesy a future, earthly kingdom. In the past, those opposing millenarianism often failed to satisfactorily interpret such passages. They attempted to apply them to the church in the present age or to heaven. Such interpretations did not make sense to many good people. They shouldn’t have! They were wrong. Only the doctrine of the new earth provides a proper interpretation of such passages.”

First, the kingdom of heaven is not the kingdom that has for its sphere or realm heaven. As observed in Chapter 8, kingdom in the Bible refers primarily to a reign and not a realm. The kingdom of heaven is not the realm of heaven. It is the kingdom ruled over by heaven. Heaven is the throne of God. Matthew 5:34 remarks, “But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God.” Thus, the kingdom of heaven includes the earth and its inhabitants and may be entered and dwelt in by them while still on the earth. Consider the following New Testament statements in proof of this …. Second, it must be remembered that the term, heavenly, refers to the source of something not its nature or sphere. The heavenly man is the man from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47, 48). The heavenly vision consisted of light from heaven (Acts 26:13, 19). The heavenly calling is not a calling to heaven, but a calling from heaven. The heavenly country is not a country in heaven, but a country from heaven as. The heavenly kingdom is the kingdom from heaven and not the kingdom in heaven. The heavenly city is a city that comes down out of heaven from God. Third, it must be remembered that the treasure stored up for the people of God in heaven descends from heaven at the return of Christ. Though heaven is the happy abode of the disembodied righteous during the present age, in the age to come heaven comes to earth. Our inheritance is only reserved in heaven until the last day. Our treasure is only temporarily stored up in heaven.[4]

I do need to add that there is some basis for anti-premillennial claims that Premillennialism is carnal. Take for example this quote from the first premillennialist known in church history. The quote is attributed to Papias by the church father, Eusebius of Caesarea. Papias is by common consent of church historians regarded as a premillennialist. Eusebius who records this quotation says that he was.

As the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord taught in regard to those times,and said: “The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes,and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, “I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.” In like manner, (He said) that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man.”[5]

Personally, I think that this quotation gives some warrant to the claim that Papias’ eschatology was carnal.  Nevertheless, I do not think that Amillennialists should use arguments that condemn all hopes of a future, physical kingdom as carnal. Here Horner is right. Materiality in the Scriptures may be very spiritual.  We should condemn a return to the Old Testament types and shadows and the misguided hermeneutic which leads to this, but we should not condemn the re-erection of the theocratic kingdom in a new earth where dwells a new Israel. The Bible does teach the restoration of the theocratic kingdom on earth. Only it is not for the old Israel, but the new. And it does not last only a thousand years, but forever!

            What about the Premillennialism of Spurgeon, Bonar, and Ryle?

Here let me also commend Horner for drawing to our attention a class of premillennialists in the 1800’s whose views faded from general sight in the 1900’s and 2000’s. In the growing controversy in which Dispensationalism and Amillenialism were the main adversaries, the more moderate views of some famous 19th century Calvinists were lost from sight. Their premillennial views deserve to be more widely known. It seems clear to me from the evidence cited by Horner and also by Dennis Swanson[6] that there were in Swanson’s words non-Dispensational Premillennialists who believed in a literal restoration of national Israel to the land in connection with their Premillennial views. In this number, it appears to me, must be included Horatius Bonar, C H. Spurgeon, and J. C. Ryle.

Horner and Swanson deserve credit for bringing these men to our attention. This is so for two reasons. First, their views form an interesting transitional or mediating viewpoint between Historic Premillennialism and Dispensationalism. Here I am affirming that the views of these men (Spurgeon et al) are not typical of Historic Premillennialism. They are, of course, typical in one respect. As Swanson shows, Spurgeon definitely and emphatically rejected the division between the Church and Israel postulated by Dispensationalism. Although I am going on my general knowledge of their theology, I suppose that so also did Bonar and Ryle. This rejection of the church/Israel distinction is the distinguishing difference between Historic and Dispensational Premillennialism.

But in another way these men occupy a mediating position between the two camps. Historic Premillannialism has perhaps two premier representatives. One from the 2nd and the other from the 20th century. They are respectively Justin Martyr and George Eldon Ladd. They not only accepted the idea of the church as the new Israel at the same time, but also rejected the idea that there was a territorial future for national Israel in the promised. It is clear to me anyway that—logically and hermeneutically speaking—this is where the idea of the church as the new Israel ought to lead. If the church is the new or eschatological Israel, then it is the prophetic Israel. If it is the prophetic Israel, then the Old Testament passages predicting a marvelous future for Israel ought logically to be understood of the new Israel—the church. Yet, however their possible inconsistency is explained, Bonar, Spurgeon, and Ryle thought that Old Testament prophecies ought to be understood of national Israel. Spurgeon, in spite of acknowledging that the whole church/Israel distinction was a fanciful invention of Darby, thought the Old Testament predicted a territorial future for Israel in the promised land. This seems inconsistent to me, but Spurgeon apparently never recognized the problem.

It is also interesting that Spurgeon and the other men cited by Horner drew back from a number of the logical consequences of their way of reading the Old Testament prophecies and especially Ezekiel 40-48. Their identification of Israel there as ethnic or national Israel ought to have committed them straightforwardly to the rebuilding of the temple, the re-institution of the Levitical priesthood, the continuing practice of circumcision, and the re-erection of the Old Testament calendar. Yet at each of these points these brethren were strangely reticent and hesitant. Swanson himself summarizes Spurgeon on these points as follows:

Secondary features, which Spurgeon speculates as possibilities, are as follows: (1) During the millennial kingdom there may be a temple or “Christian Structure” built on the Temple Mount for worship of God. (2) During the millennium there may be some forms of Old Testament ceremonial adherence (Sabbaths, New Moons, etc.), but that those forms will be modified to be appropriate for the church.

Even if Swanson is right, these are strangely hesitant assertions on Spurgeon’s part. According to Swanson, these things Spurgeon “speculates as possibilities.” What does that mean? Why are they not certainties? A literal reading of the text certainly requires even more. It requires each of the things and more that I mentioned above. Why, then, does Spurgeon speculate as possibilities dramatically modified and Christianized versions of what the text actually says literally understood? I think the reason is that Spurgeon sensed that taking a literal hermeneutic that far would put him on a collision course with the New Testament.

The bottom-line is, however, that such men are not typical of Historic Premillennialism, that is, unless your church history only goes as far back as the 19th century. The Premillennialism of the early church epitomized in Justin Martyr and his Dialog with Trypho the Jew took an entirely different view of Old Testament prophecy in asserting that the church was God’s true Israel.

The second reason we thank Horner for drawing attention to these men is this. They also epitomize an historical, theological dilemma which, I think, in no small way was responsible for their views.  Here is my theory. I believe that Spurgeon and company were driven into this peculiar form of premillennialism because it seemed the best of the viable options before them.

The prevailing postmillennialism was not acceptable because it placed at such a distance Christ’s glorious return—relegating it to the remote end of a glorious earthly millennium. Inevitably the second coming of Christ in such a system ceased to occupy the central place it has in biblical eschatology. Amillennialism at this period was characterized by a tendency to affirm the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies either to the original return from the Babylon captivity or to realities already resident in the Christian church. Spurgeon and company were sufficiently in touch with the material spirituality of the Bible and its emphasis on the glorious and physical re-erection of the Theocratic kingdom plainly promised in the Old Testament that the overly spiritualized kind of Amillennialism then extant also seemed unacceptable. We should also probably add to this the concern for and confidence in the future conversion of the Jews that they inherited from Puritanism. We must also taken into account how this biblical conviction seemed to cohere with the growing Zionist tendencies of the period.

In a nutshell the long debate between Dispensationalism (which almost completely displaced the mediating position of Spurgeon) and Amillennialism has led to results which have introduced a brand new eschatological scene. Perhaps it is speculative, but I do not think it is far-fetched to think that in the present scene these men might have made different choices today than they made then.

The displacing of the mediating position of Spurgeon and company by Dispensationalism has illustrated, I think, the inherently unstable character of the position that affirms that the church is the new Israel, but at the same time affirms that Old Testament prophecies about Israel must be interpreted of national or ethnic Israel. Historically speaking, the eschatology of Spurgeon and company is a failed position, a failed eschatology. Though we thank Horner and Swanson for recovering it in the interest of theological accuracy, the very fact that it needed recovery shows that it existed on a slippery slope that led downward to Dispensationalism.

The long debate between Amillennialism and Dispensationalism has led also to the splintering of Dispensationalism. The current state of terminology used to distinguish the varying Dispensational positions is illustrative of this splintering. Leaving aside here the Bullingerites with their Hyper-Dispensationalism which denies that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are for today, you still have a number of varieties today of Dispensationalism. You have the Classic Dispensationalism of the Old Scofield Bible. There is the Modified Dispensationalism of the New Scofield and Ryrie. There is the yet more modified Dispensationalism of John MacArthur. Finally, there is the Progressive Dispensationalism of Blaising and Bock. A fierce debate rages within the Dispensational camp as to whether the second coming of Christ is pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, or pre-wrath. These different positions are the result of the aggressive onslaught of Amillenialism on Dispensationalism over the last century and a half.

The splintering of Dispensationalism has also led to the attempt of Horner, Swanson, and others to revitalize the mediating position of Spurgeon and company. I doubt if this project can be successful. As I have said, it seems inherently self-contradictory to me. It must lead back to Dispensationalism (Horner) or onward to something else (Swanson?).

The long debate between Amillennialism and Dispensationalism has also led to the modification of Amillennialism. The emerging emphasis on the new earth in Amillennialists like Anthony Hoekema and others signals a new awareness of the need to find a more compelling fulfillment of the Old Testament predictions of a glorious future for Israel. I suspect this sensitivity has been gained through the long war with Dispensationalism and its emphasis on a future, physcial kingdom. The re-erection of a glorified and transformed theocratic kingdom in the new earth wonderfully meets this requirement. It does so without a nagging problem that bedevils premillennial interpretations of that language. The glorious kingdom is not limited in time, as premillennialists have to say, but eternal, as the key texts actually affirm (Isa. 2:4; 65:17-19; Ezekiel 47-48 cf. Rev. 21:4; 22:5).

Also emerging in contemporary Amillennialism is a more careful hermeneutic of and approach to the Old Testament. This hermeneutic in emphasizing the physically Jewish character of the church does more justice to the Old Testament. In this way it is not guilty of supercessionism or replacement theology. It makes better sense of how the Church can be a new Israel by emphasizing its Jewish Messiah, Jewish apostolic foundation, and the elect Jewish remnant which forms the nucleus of the church in every generation. In this way the true continuity between the old and new Israel is brought out more satisfactorily. In this way passages that predict the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:6-7; and Acts 3:19-21) can be given their full cash value without falling into a hyper-literal hermeneutic and view of prophecy that forgets the figurative aspect of biblical language.

MacArthur claimed in his famous sermon that, if Calvin was alive today, he would be a Premillennialist. May I with at least equal justification opine that, if Spurgeon were alive today, he would be an Amillennialist?

            What ought a Christian to believe about the future of ethnic Israel?

What ought a Christian to believe about the future of ethnic Israel? In the book very soon to be published by Reformed Baptist Academic Press MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response an appendix provides my understanding of Romans 11. It owes a great deal to O. Palmer Robertson.  Its cash value is this. I think Romans 11 predicts the continued existence of ethnic Israel and the salvation of an elect remnant in each generation until the return of Christ. In this way—cumulatively—“all Israel will be saved.” It is partly because of this ongoing salvation of an elect remnant that the church must and may be thought of as the new Israel of God.

            What is a Christian approach to the State of Israel today?

How should a Christian feel about the state of Israel in the Middle East today? Let me give several responses to this question.

He ought not, in the first place, to feel that it is the fulfillment of prophecy. I am asserting, in other words, that the present state of Israel has no theological or prophetic right to the land of Palestine. The Old Testament everywhere associates the eschatological return of Israel to the land (whatever it means by that exactly) with repentance.

He ought not, in the second place, to fail to entertain a redemptive and patient attitude with the nation of Israel’s present impenitence and persecution of the Christian church. It is true that a residual curse rests on the Jews because of their ancient and ongoing rejection of their Messiah, but this is an aspect of God’s decretive will. As such, because the rule of our duty is God’s preceptive will—not His decretive will—this curse provides no justification for supporting prejudice against the Jews or suppression of their civil rights of the Jews. This curse (in any sense that it is ongoing) ought rather to move us to pity and evangelistic efforts than wicked racism or hateful prejudice against the Jews.

A Christian ought not, in the third place, to favor the political demise of the State of Israel. I do not favor this. Let me make that clear. Their persecution of the Palestinians and any crimes they may have committed against them cannot, of course, be justified. Yet it is clear to me on political and moral grounds alone that a pro-Israel policy on the part of the United States is proper. It is ethical on moral grounds especially given the historic persecution of the Jews and on political grounds favorable to the cause of limited government in the world.

Is Amillennialism (and what Horner calls Supercessionism) guilty of Anti-Semitism? I hope that I have made abundantly clear that the answer is no–not by any proper definition of the word!

---

[1]Hank Hanegraff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 62-69.

[2]Objections were made to my understanding of the fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48 in our blog.  One correspondent said something like this:  You still haven’t made clear why, in your view, there are some notable differences between the Temple, ceremonies, support for the priests, etc. in Ezekiel 40-48 and the Mosaic System.  The problem here is that the passage says too much and I think your explanation is too thin. These are interesting questions that are worthy of thoughtful answers.  In the second place, let me say that I do not claim to be able to offer the ultimate explanation of all this.  In the third place, let me say that the differences between the old and the (supposed) millennial temple do not amount to proof in my view that you have here an entirely different system. There were differences between the tabernacle and the temple in the Old Testament. They were both still Mosaic. The differences between the Solomonic and Restored Temple and the Temple of Ezekiel 40-48 are less dramatic than the differences between these temples and the tabernacle.  In the fourth place, we must realize that Ezekiel was, of course, prophesying of a glorious future. To this end certain alterations are to be expected in line with this theme.  In the fifth place, some of the differences seem clearly to be idealized. For instance, the division of the land on straight horizontal lines east and west across the land (with inheritances also apparently of identical size) conforming to no geographical features and following no natural boundaries suggests to me and, I think, to most readers something symbolic and ideal–and not something literal and prosaic. Cf. Ezekiel 48.  In the sixth place, if we are right about Ezekiel 40-48 being figurative, then part of the hermeneutical turf is that you do not demand exacting allegorical detail from the figurative language of the Bible. You do not make a parable “walk on all fours” as someone said. You also do not force such detail on the inspired dreams of prophets.  In the seventh place, it is not necessary for me to offer the final word on questions like “What is all the detail about?” or “What exactly do we make of the differences between the Temple of Solomon and the Temple of Ezekiel?” Such questions do not invalidate the solid biblical ground upon which I have shown a figurative interpretation of Ezekiel is demanded.  They are like the problem passages Arminians urge against the doctrines of grace. Such passages do not even pretend to address the solid biblical foundations of Particular Redemption or the Perseverance of the Saints. Hence, they are not so much objections to the doctrines of grace as remaining difficulties. One does not need to suspend one’s faith in the Perseverance of the Saints until he feels he can say the last word about Hebrews 6. Romans 8 and a whole host of other passages are clear.  Similarly, I do not need to give the final word in response to such difficulties if the foundation of my position is clear, and it is. The New Testament unequivocally teaches the passing away of the Levitical priesthood, the animal sin offerings, the rite of physical circumcision, and the Mosaic religious calendar. It unequivocally teaches that the fulfillment of the river running from the Temple and tree of life are to be found in the New Earth where there is no temple except the presence of God and the Lamb. Hence, these difficulties–though real and deserving of thoughtful response–do not address the biblical foundations of my position.

[3]Questions are often raised about Acts 1:6-7:  So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.  It seems common for those who hold my general point of view on eschatology (Amillennialism) to take the position that this text neither implies nor states that there is a future restoration of the Kingdom to Israel. Here let me shock my enemies (and perhaps disappoint my friends). Personally, I think the text does imply a future restoration of the Kingdom to Israel on earth. It seems to that this conclusion is unavoidable given the teaching that the theocratic kingdom destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar is to be re-erected under Messiah. It seems to me unavoidable given the teaching of Jesus that His apostles would sit on 12 thrones governing the twelve tribes of Israel in the regeneration (Matt. 19:28). It seems to me unavoidable given the later teaching of Peter in Acts 3:19-21 that there will be a restoration of all things that will include God’s blessings on physical Jews.  Of course, let me hasten to say that I understand this kingdom to be the universal and eternal kingdom erected by the Messiah when he returns in glory and resurrects not only His people, but the physical world (Romans 8:19-23). I understand this restored theocracy to be a transformed and glorified theocratic kingdom fulfilling all the types and shadows of Old Testament (and not returning to them). (The idea of a physical millennial temple, as I have showed) is clearly a retrogression to the Old Testament shadows.) Of course, I understand the restored Israel not to be old, unregenerate Israel, but new, regenerate reformed and expanded Israel including not only spiritually circumcised Gentiles, but also a remnant of Jews from every generation, Jewish rulers (Christ’s Apostles), and a Jewish King (Messiah Jesus). 

[4]Samuel E. Waldron, End Times Made Simple (Calvary Press: Amityville, NY, 2003), 238-241.

[5]Papias, Fragments, IV, V, VI. These may be found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, (Scribner’s: New York, 1905), 153, 154.

[6]Dennis Swanson, “Charles H. Spurgeon and the Nation of Israel: A Non-Dispensational Perspective on a Literal National Restoration,” found on the internet at the Spurgeon archive website at this address: http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/eschat2.htm.